Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2015
DOI: 10.18653/v1/d15-1145
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Graph-Based Collective Lexical Selection for Statistical Machine Translation

Abstract: Lexical selection is of great importance to statistical machine translation. In this paper, we propose a graph-based framework for collective lexical selection. The framework is established on a translation graph that captures not only local associations between source-side content words and their target translations but also targetside global dependencies in terms of relatedness among target items. We also introduce a random walk style algorithm to collectively identify translations of sourceside content word… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
(24 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The authors used it to specify the senses of the source words and integrate them as contextual features with a MaxEnt-based translation model for English-Portuguese MT. Similarly, Su et al (2015) built a large weighted graph model of both source and target word dependencies and integrated them as features to a SMT model. However, apart from the sense graph, WordNet provides also textual information such as sense definitions and examples, which should be useful for disambiguating senses, but were not used in the above studies.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors used it to specify the senses of the source words and integrate them as contextual features with a MaxEnt-based translation model for English-Portuguese MT. Similarly, Su et al (2015) built a large weighted graph model of both source and target word dependencies and integrated them as features to a SMT model. However, apart from the sense graph, WordNet provides also textual information such as sense definitions and examples, which should be useful for disambiguating senses, but were not used in the above studies.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies integrated sense information as features to SMT, either obtained from the sense graph provided by WordNet (Neale et al, 2016) or generated from both sides of word dependencies (Su et al, 2015). However, apart from the sense graph, WordNet provides also textual information such as sense definitions and examples, which should be useful for WSD, but were not used in the above studies.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, the word ambiguities (or homographs), which are spelt the same but have different meanings, reduces the performance of both the SMT [19,28] and NMT [24,29]. The word ambiguity problem forces MT systems to choose among several translation candidates representing different senses of a source word.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%